netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC 3/3] vhost, kcov: collect coverage from vhost

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191017202843.GA1103978@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Oct 2019 13:28:43 -0700
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
Cc:     USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/3] vhost, kcov: collect coverage from vhost_worker

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 09:00:18PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 8:18 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 07:44:15PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> > > This patch adds kcov_remote_start/kcov_remote_stop annotations to the
> > > vhost_worker function, which is responsible for processing vhost works.
> > > Since vhost_worker is spawned when a vhost device instance is created,
> > > the common kcov handle is used for kcov_remote_start/stop annotations.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > >  drivers/vhost/vhost.h |  3 +++
> > >  2 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > > index 36ca2cf419bf..71a349f6b352 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > > @@ -357,7 +357,13 @@ static int vhost_worker(void *data)
> > >               llist_for_each_entry_safe(work, work_next, node, node) {
> > >                       clear_bit(VHOST_WORK_QUEUED, &work->flags);
> > >                       __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_KCOV
> > > +                     kcov_remote_start(dev->kcov_handle);
> > > +#endif
> >
> > Shouldn't you hide these #ifdefs in a .h file?  This is not a "normal"
> > kernel coding style at all.
> 
> Well, if it's acceptable to add a kcov_handle field into vhost_dev
> even when CONFIG_KCOV is not enabled, then we can get rid of those
> #ifdefs.

It should be, it's not a big deal and there's not a ton of those
structures around that one more field is going to hurt anything...

thanks,

greg k-h